Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia
{"title":"Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward","authors":"Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia","doi":"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36558,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100639"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.